Because software tools for downloading and copying video content are now commonplace, it is easy to fall into an unauthorized practice of inadvertently or purposely redistributing proprietary video content. Although various techniques have been implemented or proposed for discouraging unauthorized redistribution of video content, to such as encryption or copy protection schemes, such mechanisms are generally complex and relatively expensive to implement. As described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,574,348 to Venkatesan et al., for example, digital watermarking may use cryptographic techniques to subtly alter video images so that they may later be identified as illicitly copied, even when the watermarking cannot be perceived by the human eye. A watermark typically hides information about the proprietor or copyright holder within the video content itself. When the video content is pirated, the watermark is proof that the content originated with the proprietor. Such digital watermarking schemata, however, are “after-the-fact” measures designed to test whether an image is a duplicate of an original non-marked image. They constitute proof of illicit video content dissemination after the infraction has occurred and typically require enforcement against an end user who redistributed the video content without authorization.